Obama bemoans 'diversions' of IPod, Xbox era(google.com)
google.com
Obama bemoans 'diversions' of IPod, Xbox era
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hcoyG-Ck3-VwZB7fqpUFXbffoObg
14 comments
It seems his argument is that information inundation lets stupid ideas live longer than they might otherwise, which is actually pretty wise
I'm not convinced that Obama can distinguish between "stupid ideas" and "ideas which are contrary to the Obama agenda" though. Of course he's hardly unique among politicians for this, but I do think he's less likely than, say, President Bush, to acknowledge the existence of informed and principled opposition to his policies.
It's interesting that the internet has allowed the political right to get organised in a way that it never really has before. The left-wing political protests of the 1960s had universities as their organizational focus, whereas the right never really had any similar way of getting a protest movement off the ground until the internet.
There's only a few quotes from the actual speech given but bits like this:
"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter"
sound a little to me like a man bitter that the internet is being used to spread arguments disagreeing with his own.
I'm not convinced that Obama can distinguish between "stupid ideas" and "ideas which are contrary to the Obama agenda" though. Of course he's hardly unique among politicians for this, but I do think he's less likely than, say, President Bush, to acknowledge the existence of informed and principled opposition to his policies.
It's interesting that the internet has allowed the political right to get organised in a way that it never really has before. The left-wing political protests of the 1960s had universities as their organizational focus, whereas the right never really had any similar way of getting a protest movement off the ground until the internet.
There's only a few quotes from the actual speech given but bits like this:
"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter"
sound a little to me like a man bitter that the internet is being used to spread arguments disagreeing with his own.
The birther stuff, in particular, is a great example of nonsense that perpetuates. On a policy level, we were hijacked by the death panel nonsense. Debate the public option and minimum coverage requirements and subsidies - sure - but the death panel stuff is just nonsense designed purely to distort the debate.
If you don't get how having to deal with stuff like that at the expense of substantive debate harms our nation, I don't know what to tell you.
Why their communications team (and remember his chief speechwriter since 2007 is a guy born in 1981[1]) keeps linking this with video games and iPods (which he certainly does know how to use; it's a bizarre line) has to be some sort of polling data. Cause, on its face, it's asinine.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Favreau_(speechwriter)
If you don't get how having to deal with stuff like that at the expense of substantive debate harms our nation, I don't know what to tell you.
Why their communications team (and remember his chief speechwriter since 2007 is a guy born in 1981[1]) keeps linking this with video games and iPods (which he certainly does know how to use; it's a bizarre line) has to be some sort of polling data. Cause, on its face, it's asinine.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Favreau_(speechwriter)
I have an alternative theory: Obama is contemptuous of video games and iPods because Obama is contemptuous of video games and iPods. The hip, with-it, I-use-Twitter Obama that so many folks fell in love with? That was the poll-tested messaged-massaged for-marketing-consumption version.
He's married to his blackberry. Not remotely surprising that he's not into i* products.
Actually I kinda think stupid ideas like birtherism are deliberately given air by the Obama operation. I don't mean that in a "conspiracy theory" sense, I just mean that politicians would rather engage loudly with the silliest of their opponents rather than the most sensible. By focusing attention on the few loonies who oppose Obama, Obama attempts to associate opposition to Obama with looniness. If birthers didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent them.
As evidence, witness how quickly and reflexively this thread jumped into a discussion of birtherism.
Anyway, I guess my point is that would be hypocritical for Obama (or, in all fairness, pretty much any politician out there) to complain about the infantilization of political rhetoric. This, after all, is the man whose favourite rhetorical device is the "There are those who say [something that nobody actually says]" strawman.
As evidence, witness how quickly and reflexively this thread jumped into a discussion of birtherism.
Anyway, I guess my point is that would be hypocritical for Obama (or, in all fairness, pretty much any politician out there) to complain about the infantilization of political rhetoric. This, after all, is the man whose favourite rhetorical device is the "There are those who say [something that nobody actually says]" strawman.
The birthers are only the easiest example. Look at the health care debate. I am sympathetic to a capitalist-based reform, but the fundamental problem is that even the moderately informed had difficulties following the real issues because the media failed to actually tell people what the public option was!
I've heard multiple anecdotes (I know, not a representative sample) where someone "came up with" the public option but didn't explain it with those words, and their friends thought it was a good idea, but the "public option" was "government intervention and death panels."
The problem isn't the competing ideas -- the problem is the level of the debate.
I've heard multiple anecdotes (I know, not a representative sample) where someone "came up with" the public option but didn't explain it with those words, and their friends thought it was a good idea, but the "public option" was "government intervention and death panels."
The problem isn't the competing ideas -- the problem is the level of the debate.
On the other hand it's not like the Democrats were going out of their way to explain what was in the bill either. Instead, they spent most of their time talking about how "reform" is "necessary" (without acknowledging that many types of reform are possible) and even more time demonizing any opposition as either ignorant hicks or shills paid by the insurance industry.
You won't find any disagreement from me if you say that the level of political discourse is too low. You will find disagreement if you try to claim that Barack Obama has a genuine desire for it to be higher.
You won't find any disagreement from me if you say that the level of political discourse is too low. You will find disagreement if you try to claim that Barack Obama has a genuine desire for it to be higher.
well, the president had what i think was at least a couple dozen speeches on why it was important, and in many of them he was quite detailed. and the kind of reform that republicans were proposing was in the opposite direction... towards deregulation
but as i said elsewhere, when you have one side poisoning the well and otherwise completely pulling shit out of their ass, the other side doesn't have many easy options. the negativity drowned out the actual info
also keep in mind Fox is a propaganda network that many people take seriously
but as i said elsewhere, when you have one side poisoning the well and otherwise completely pulling shit out of their ass, the other side doesn't have many easy options. the negativity drowned out the actual info
also keep in mind Fox is a propaganda network that many people take seriously
To be fair, however, many things sound like "good ideas" until you try and implement them... It's difficult for people to consider all the long-term implications of such a change in health system, and dangerously easy to gloss over what may seem like small minutiae, but ends up meaning the difference between life and death for people. In the end, "public option" is just a set of words that could be used to describe any number of systems ranging from ideal to unbearable, and so it is not of any positive or negative value in itself. The devil is in the details.
you really couldn't expect anything different considering how all-out the opposition went, combined with the fact that people respond to negative statements easier than positive statements. it's never a good combination for the people trying to Change things
i noticed some lessons have been learned, though. you can see this learnination in how the financial reform has played out, with the president full stop calling out the opposition's assertions as false
i noticed some lessons have been learned, though. you can see this learnination in how the financial reform has played out, with the president full stop calling out the opposition's assertions as false
It's a good theory. I don't quite understand how he managed to get Fox news in on the plot, though.
And you sound to me like someone who comes to this discussion with some preconceptions of his/her own.
He regularly acknowledges other viewpoints and their validity.
What he is speaking out against is obvious mistruths: birtherism, "Obama is a socialist", death panels, "Obama is a secret Muslim", health care reform gives the government the power to pull the plug on grandma, etc.
He regularly acknowledges other viewpoints and their validity.
What he is speaking out against is obvious mistruths: birtherism, "Obama is a socialist", death panels, "Obama is a secret Muslim", health care reform gives the government the power to pull the plug on grandma, etc.
Here is the text of his speech: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/05/ob...
Let's read that before spending a bunch of effort debating only a single sentence of it.
(It didn't take me long to find. It is the speech he planned to give, not a transcript, so there may be some minor differences in the actual address.)
Let's read that before spending a bunch of effort debating only a single sentence of it.
(It didn't take me long to find. It is the speech he planned to give, not a transcript, so there may be some minor differences in the actual address.)
I'm especially surprised at where the discussion of this speech is focused. It seems that people aren't focusing on the context or the core message.
He's speaking at a HBCU to a largely if not all black graduating class. This isn't Stanford or MIT. I know theres a blind spot to the inequality African American students face and that this is a sensitive issue, but I don't think telling African American students who are graduating college to be wary of a lot of the distractions these days such as xbox and twitter is a bad thing.
I could go on for a bit about why, but Obama lays out the statistics for you...
American students are ranked about 10th overall compared to top-performing countries. African Americans, however, are ranked behind more than twenty nations, lower than nearly every other developed country.
I would say that Obama is inspiring a generation of African Americans to work harder and strive for more because inequality is still pervasive throughout American society and education is the key to overcoming this. Why is it so hard to miss this message?
He's speaking at a HBCU to a largely if not all black graduating class. This isn't Stanford or MIT. I know theres a blind spot to the inequality African American students face and that this is a sensitive issue, but I don't think telling African American students who are graduating college to be wary of a lot of the distractions these days such as xbox and twitter is a bad thing.
I could go on for a bit about why, but Obama lays out the statistics for you...
American students are ranked about 10th overall compared to top-performing countries. African Americans, however, are ranked behind more than twenty nations, lower than nearly every other developed country.
I would say that Obama is inspiring a generation of African Americans to work harder and strive for more because inequality is still pervasive throughout American society and education is the key to overcoming this. Why is it so hard to miss this message?
[deleted]
The President's speech is the educational industrial complex's standard paen to itself. It is uttered at appropriate "levelling-up" ceremonies by certified members of the cabal to customers seeking justification of their expenditures and validation of the status they have obtained. It's the appropriate boilerplate to deliver to customers at this point in their buying experience, but it doesn't say too much about the President's views.
If I read his speech on my iPad, does that make it a distraction, a diversion, or entertainment in the President's rubric? Am I being entertained or emancipated? It depends on who's doing the consumption and to what end.
Am I being overwhelmed with an unmanageable deluge of information? That's the argument the church made against the Luther Bible and the printing press. Information wise, we've always been capable of overwhelming ourselves by scanning a landscape, listening at the shore, or staring into the night's sky. Is reading a novel educational or entertaining? Does it depend on the nature of the novel? Is there a quantitative basis for that classification, like the number of neurons rewired by ingesting the novel? or the improved efficacy or performance of the system after ingestion?
Distractions, amusements and entertainments are the means by which our minds extend themselves to qualitative and quantitative changes in the information landscape: in information space, we evolve through play. Playing with information yields further information, knowledge, and maybe some wisdom. Sometimes play spills to the physical realm as artifacts or shared experience. Differentiating between "education" and "entertainment", "entertainment" and "art", or ranking things in terms of "usefulness" is post hoc analysis geared to reinforce the status quo, its information taxonomy, and its hierarchy of cultural value—an increasingly unmaintainable fiction, the acknowledgement of which would invalidate the blessing being conferred on this cohort of lemmings by the establishment through the President's words.
If I read his speech on my iPad, does that make it a distraction, a diversion, or entertainment in the President's rubric? Am I being entertained or emancipated? It depends on who's doing the consumption and to what end.
Am I being overwhelmed with an unmanageable deluge of information? That's the argument the church made against the Luther Bible and the printing press. Information wise, we've always been capable of overwhelming ourselves by scanning a landscape, listening at the shore, or staring into the night's sky. Is reading a novel educational or entertaining? Does it depend on the nature of the novel? Is there a quantitative basis for that classification, like the number of neurons rewired by ingesting the novel? or the improved efficacy or performance of the system after ingestion?
Distractions, amusements and entertainments are the means by which our minds extend themselves to qualitative and quantitative changes in the information landscape: in information space, we evolve through play. Playing with information yields further information, knowledge, and maybe some wisdom. Sometimes play spills to the physical realm as artifacts or shared experience. Differentiating between "education" and "entertainment", "entertainment" and "art", or ranking things in terms of "usefulness" is post hoc analysis geared to reinforce the status quo, its information taxonomy, and its hierarchy of cultural value—an increasingly unmaintainable fiction, the acknowledgement of which would invalidate the blessing being conferred on this cohort of lemmings by the establishment through the President's words.
Here is a video of the speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-o...
Obama's arguments here remind me of Noam Chomsky's thoughts on sports:
Sports keeps people from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about. And in fact it’s striking to see the intelligence that’s used by ordinary people in sports [as opposed to political and social issues].
So much chatter to distract us from the important issues of the day.
Sports keeps people from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about. And in fact it’s striking to see the intelligence that’s used by ordinary people in sports [as opposed to political and social issues].
So much chatter to distract us from the important issues of the day.
For Noam Chomsky, like other radical leftists, the idea that the working class is deceived and distracted is part of an anti-cognitive-dissonance package to explain why the supposedly-oppressed masses fail to share his political opinions.
Obama isn't nearly as extreme as Chomsky politically, but come from the same sort of intellectual heritage.
Obama isn't nearly as extreme as Chomsky politically, but come from the same sort of intellectual heritage.
Thus the corollary: when the Revolution comes, the workers will need to be lead by those who are intellectually capable of leading them, and academic Marxists will take their rightful place in the cosmos as rulers of all they surv... first among equals.
This has basically been the totalitarian promise for a couple of centuries now.
This has basically been the totalitarian promise for a couple of centuries now.
Except that the promise is also a lie, for the academic Marxists get slaughtered when a real gangster like Stalin uses the instrumentality they've created against them.
A fitting end, too bad so many innocents have to die or suffer in the process.
A fitting end, too bad so many innocents have to die or suffer in the process.
The issue is that, with sports, people at least have a chance of being on the winning side.
Cheering for the sane public transportation team, in most cities, is like cheering for the Cubs. You know you're never going to win.
Cheering for the sane public transportation team, in most cities, is like cheering for the Cubs. You know you're never going to win.
With sports, people at least have a chance of being on the winning side...
...cheering for the Cubs. You know you're never going to win
What you seem to be saying is that the Cubs aren't proper sports players... not that I disagree...
...cheering for the Cubs. You know you're never going to win
What you seem to be saying is that the Cubs aren't proper sports players... not that I disagree...
This makes me sad.
Despite my political opposition to Obama, I thought that he understood the culture of the "IPod, XBox era." In fact, he leveraged these tools of 'diversion' in his campaign (and did so very effectively).
This seems to be the knee-jerk technophobic speech that politicians would have given in the latter half of the 20th Century. Instead of being afraid and resistant to technology (which, as we have seen, is unstoppable anyway), politicians should be encouraging the public to put these technological advances to good use. See: David Cameron's TED talk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ELnyoso6vI).
He highlights a significant point in his speech, as tel says. Being able to deal with all of the information is something that we need to cope with. However, placing the blame on the tools is not the way to go.
Despite my political opposition to Obama, I thought that he understood the culture of the "IPod, XBox era." In fact, he leveraged these tools of 'diversion' in his campaign (and did so very effectively).
This seems to be the knee-jerk technophobic speech that politicians would have given in the latter half of the 20th Century. Instead of being afraid and resistant to technology (which, as we have seen, is unstoppable anyway), politicians should be encouraging the public to put these technological advances to good use. See: David Cameron's TED talk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ELnyoso6vI).
He highlights a significant point in his speech, as tel says. Being able to deal with all of the information is something that we need to cope with. However, placing the blame on the tools is not the way to go.
I'm unsurprised that the readers here latched right on to the tools mentioned in the article, and entirely missed the point of his statements:
> ...politicians should be encouraging the public to put these technological advances to good use.
This is exactly his point. He used a few devices to hi-lite the difference between information-as-entertainment, and information-as-a-tool. This in no way makes him hypocritical for being constantly connected to a Blackberry; he's using the device in exactly the way that he's urging young graduates to use going forward. (It may make him a little hypocritical for his campaign machine, though.)
I think he's right. I think he's being proven right all the time by sites like Reddit, which were supposed to democratize the news, except that instead they repeatedly become a megaphone for internet tough guy squads and get hyped over issues where they don't have all the facts. Or like HackerNews, where daring to mention some high-tech devices causes everyone to completely miss the actual point of an argument.
> ...politicians should be encouraging the public to put these technological advances to good use.
This is exactly his point. He used a few devices to hi-lite the difference between information-as-entertainment, and information-as-a-tool. This in no way makes him hypocritical for being constantly connected to a Blackberry; he's using the device in exactly the way that he's urging young graduates to use going forward. (It may make him a little hypocritical for his campaign machine, though.)
I think he's right. I think he's being proven right all the time by sites like Reddit, which were supposed to democratize the news, except that instead they repeatedly become a megaphone for internet tough guy squads and get hyped over issues where they don't have all the facts. Or like HackerNews, where daring to mention some high-tech devices causes everyone to completely miss the actual point of an argument.
[deleted]
He's not placing the blame on the tools any more than you or I would bemoan the hours 'lost' to Hacker News. It's a longer view, step back.
We do need to come to grips with the social changes that are occurring and the implications of our present and future digital lives. Our man-made environment isn't the problem, it's our evolutionary memory combined with the phenomenal acceleration of information technology.
We do need to come to grips with the social changes that are occurring and the implications of our present and future digital lives. Our man-made environment isn't the problem, it's our evolutionary memory combined with the phenomenal acceleration of information technology.
I disagree because of this one line in his speech:
"none of which I know how to work"
which reads like the classic politician's way of distancing him- or herself from the technology (and have heard from technophobic politicians--http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/mccain-admits-he-do...). Whether its true or not isn't really the point (do we seriously believe Obama wouldn't know what to do with a iPad, iPhone or iPod?), the point is that it was in his speech. I could be completely off base here (and I surely hope that I am!), but this is a decidedly late 20th century speech in my interpretation.
"none of which I know how to work"
which reads like the classic politician's way of distancing him- or herself from the technology (and have heard from technophobic politicians--http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/mccain-admits-he-do...). Whether its true or not isn't really the point (do we seriously believe Obama wouldn't know what to do with a iPad, iPhone or iPod?), the point is that it was in his speech. I could be completely off base here (and I surely hope that I am!), but this is a decidedly late 20th century speech in my interpretation.
The article deliberately highlights that as an aside - and none of the transcripts have it in them (that I can find). I can't find a video that covers the portion of the speech but it could well be a joke - or a bit of irony. It reads that way.
[deleted]
This speech should not be taken seriously - not because Obama (a) has no idea how to play X Box, or (b) spends all day on his Blackberry, but because his administration has thrown its full weight behind the most toxic aspects of ACTA. Even the name of the treaty is a fraud. So why is he supporting it so aggressively?
In this speech, Obama says the world is experiencing a moment of "breathtaking change", and goes on to say "we can't stop these changes... but we can adapt to them."
How? By exporting laws that call for $1.92 million fines in response to 24 privately downloaded .mp3s? By allowing the USTA to bully Canada over 'laxity' when the IP laws in question are stricter than our own? (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4997/125/). By threatening Indonesia with the same kind of psychotic economic violence in 'retaliation' for their government's formal support of Open Source? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/feb/23/openso...).
If this is "adaptation", what was the Opium War? A humanitarian relief mission?
I promise you, iPads and X-Boxes are not the problem.
In this speech, Obama says the world is experiencing a moment of "breathtaking change", and goes on to say "we can't stop these changes... but we can adapt to them."
How? By exporting laws that call for $1.92 million fines in response to 24 privately downloaded .mp3s? By allowing the USTA to bully Canada over 'laxity' when the IP laws in question are stricter than our own? (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4997/125/). By threatening Indonesia with the same kind of psychotic economic violence in 'retaliation' for their government's formal support of Open Source? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/feb/23/openso...).
If this is "adaptation", what was the Opium War? A humanitarian relief mission?
I promise you, iPads and X-Boxes are not the problem.
Excellent; that's some of the most intelligent argument in this area I've seen for a while.
And it is so true. Look st how much time people spend propogating meme's on facebook. Ok so there is always room for us to enjoy banal stuff - but I feel like it is starting to enroach on our lives.
It's like the sivers post from the other day; if only we shared an interesting wikipedia rather than one of those chain emails, conspiracy theories or "questionaires"...
And it is so true. Look st how much time people spend propogating meme's on facebook. Ok so there is always room for us to enjoy banal stuff - but I feel like it is starting to enroach on our lives.
It's like the sivers post from the other day; if only we shared an interesting wikipedia rather than one of those chain emails, conspiracy theories or "questionaires"...
[deleted](1)
I'm not sure I agree with the implication that said devices are to blame for this sort of thing. A lot of this problem is just as, or if not even more prevalent in old media. One could argue that more convenient Internet access helps solving the problem by allowing people to do fact-checking for themselves. I know I look up points of contention on wikipedia via my phone in a way that just wasn't possible a couple of years ago.
[deleted]
While I support most of the man's political stances, Obama's take on the iPad and console culture is perhaps a smidge hypocritical, given that he is, after all, a known Blackberry addict.
Wait...you're saying that it's not possible to believe that "information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," while still using such devices?
If I warn that hammers can smash thumbs, may I still use one without being assailed by charges of hypocrisy?
If I warn that hammers can smash thumbs, may I still use one without being assailed by charges of hypocrisy?
No, but decrying the harms of cigarettes whilst puffing a mouthful's worth at once would certainly garner grounds for such an accusation.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The reaction thus far to the President's comments seem to prove his point. Instead of focusing on any of the more challenging assertions many people latch onto the one easily consumable statement about iPads and Xboxs and ignore the bigger points. Imagine if people devoted the mental resources they use on debating minor details of technology, sports, entertainment, etc to real world issues? Imagine if they ran for office? It would change the world.
Quite Huxleyan of him. This paragraph by Neil Postman is worth cross-referencing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World#Comparisons_wit...
That is a pretty dishonest headline you're using to summarize this article.
The problem is the original headline. The headline makes it sound like Obama is bemoaning iPads and Xboxes. It's sensational, it grabs your attention, and you wonder why he's bemoaning technology. And then you get to the article, which is actually about Obama bemoaning "the fact that "some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction." Hmmmm.... Text-book irony.
That was the original article title, which is preferred under the Hacker News guidelines.
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don't think a score of -4 is warranted. Although his comment was misdirected ("you're"), it is a pretty awful headline.
[deleted]
>"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work..."
What the hell? This sounds like Bush.
What happened to the guy who was in love with his blackberry?
What the hell? This sounds like Bush.
What happened to the guy who was in love with his blackberry?
A BlackBerry is primarily a communications tool. I don't think we should be too concerned that the President doesn't know how to play video games.
A blackberry isn't a toy. I have at least three of the items mentioned on the list (which are toys), and I use none of them for actual productive work. Though I do have a telnet terminal app on the iPod. Still all of the devices he mentions were not designed for productive enterprises, but for diversions. And diversions have a way of being big time wasters if you're not balanced. Not today Halo 3!
What's the distinction between productive work and play? between a toy and a tool? Even if you think the distinction isn't purely subjective, you have to consider that every tool starts out as a toy, that a lot of tools are way more fun to play with than (what gets marketed as) toys, that playing can be extremely productive and that being productive can be really entertaining.
you have to consider that every tool starts out as a toy
Band saw. Pesticide. Tractor. Hunting rifle. Jackhammer.
By any meaningful definition of "toy" and "starts out", not every tool starts out as a toy. Alternatively, if you are using definitions of "toy" and "starts out" that are ridiculously overbroad: at a high enough level of abstraction, everything looks exactly the same as everything else. A worldview that is useful is preferable to one that is elegant.
Band saw. Pesticide. Tractor. Hunting rifle. Jackhammer.
By any meaningful definition of "toy" and "starts out", not every tool starts out as a toy. Alternatively, if you are using definitions of "toy" and "starts out" that are ridiculously overbroad: at a high enough level of abstraction, everything looks exactly the same as everything else. A worldview that is useful is preferable to one that is elegant.
I don't know the histories of the items you mention, but I imagine at some point in time somebody was screwing around (i.e., playing) with a predecessor technology when they "should" have been doing "productive work". I remember the days when microprocessors and personal computers were derided as toys. UNIX and Linux were once "toy" operating systems. RC planes and flight sims were the toys of hyper-nerdy outcasts in my high school; but nobody laughs at a predator drone strike.
Pesticides might not be toys, but I bet the chemists and biologists who develop them have spent a good deal of time screwing around with the underlying constituents. I recently rented a rotary hammer to perform a particular task, but spent a good amount of time afterward playing with it to see what I could jackhammer into oblivion. At what point did it stop being a tool and become a toy? I learned a good deal about the operation of the hammer and improved my technique, does that mean I wasn't playing but was getting educated? Maybe our preconceptions about work, play, and education aren't really clear or useful?
What's the useful distinction between "toy" and "tool"? Is there a bright line between toolness and toyness? Or a continuum that depends on attitude, context, and use? I'd argue the latter is a more useful and meaningful perspective for those of us who do not directly depend on our "tools" for day-to-day survival. I'd guess that most hunters are not subsistence hunters and employ their hunting rifles recreationally, during leisure time, doesn't this make them more "toy-like" than "tool-like"? Recreational ornamental horticulturalists produce nothing of "value" (in the narrow sense of receiving remuneration); does this make their use of pesticides toy-like? Is a Schrebergarten a toy garden in the same way a Tonka is a toy truck? If you eat vegetables from the Schrebergarten or use the Tonka to dolly a load, are they still toys?
The original commenter distinguished between toys (e.g., iPad) and non-toys (e.g., Blackberry). I don't see that as a useful distinction: one man's tool is another man's toy (even tractors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhKfTFdtmCk). The President claims a distinction between information as distraction, diversion, or entertainment vs. empowerment. I don't see that clear line: one man's marathon Tecmo Super Bowl session is another's all nighter studying B.F. Skinner. Who is to say which is a distraction which is a better use of that time? Were people who watched hundreds of hours of Buffy the Vampire Slayer distracted, diverted or empowered? If they got tenure from it does that change the answer?
Pesticides might not be toys, but I bet the chemists and biologists who develop them have spent a good deal of time screwing around with the underlying constituents. I recently rented a rotary hammer to perform a particular task, but spent a good amount of time afterward playing with it to see what I could jackhammer into oblivion. At what point did it stop being a tool and become a toy? I learned a good deal about the operation of the hammer and improved my technique, does that mean I wasn't playing but was getting educated? Maybe our preconceptions about work, play, and education aren't really clear or useful?
What's the useful distinction between "toy" and "tool"? Is there a bright line between toolness and toyness? Or a continuum that depends on attitude, context, and use? I'd argue the latter is a more useful and meaningful perspective for those of us who do not directly depend on our "tools" for day-to-day survival. I'd guess that most hunters are not subsistence hunters and employ their hunting rifles recreationally, during leisure time, doesn't this make them more "toy-like" than "tool-like"? Recreational ornamental horticulturalists produce nothing of "value" (in the narrow sense of receiving remuneration); does this make their use of pesticides toy-like? Is a Schrebergarten a toy garden in the same way a Tonka is a toy truck? If you eat vegetables from the Schrebergarten or use the Tonka to dolly a load, are they still toys?
The original commenter distinguished between toys (e.g., iPad) and non-toys (e.g., Blackberry). I don't see that as a useful distinction: one man's tool is another man's toy (even tractors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhKfTFdtmCk). The President claims a distinction between information as distraction, diversion, or entertainment vs. empowerment. I don't see that clear line: one man's marathon Tecmo Super Bowl session is another's all nighter studying B.F. Skinner. Who is to say which is a distraction which is a better use of that time? Were people who watched hundreds of hours of Buffy the Vampire Slayer distracted, diverted or empowered? If they got tenure from it does that change the answer?
My guess is that he's feigning some ignorance in order to identify with 'regular folks.'
Really? It sounds to me more like the classic snobbery routine of pretending not to understand the things liked by the masses.
I, for instance, am still pretending not to know who Justin Bieber is.
I, for instance, am still pretending not to know who Justin Bieber is.
Dude, sarcasm. Read it again with the word I given a lot of sarcastic emphasis.
what the heck. are people really this dense? it's an obvious joke. just wait for the video to come out
HN would be so much more enjoyable without all of the politics. At least on reddit it can be filtered out.
[deleted](1)
The historical comparisons are interesting, but I suppose it's one of those questions where technology is available but human nature and morality are lagging.